Podcasts about aljs

In this episode of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders John Surma (Houston) and Frank Davis (Dallas) discuss the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) recent statement concluding that the removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional. Frank and John explore the implications of this decision for employers, particularly those facing OSHA citations, and examine its broader impact on the evolving legal landscape of OSH Act enforcement.

Hospices that have gone through audits are familiar with certain recurring reasons why auditors deny claims. Two common reasons are the lack of support for a six-month prognosis and the insufficiency of the physician narrative. In this episode, Husch Blackwell's Meg Pekarske and Bryan Nowicki discuss a new twist on these kinds of denials, and how hospices can strengthen their documentation to try to avoid them.

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance, brings you compliance-related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee, and listen in to the Daily Compliance News—all from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day, we consider four stories from the business world: compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership, or general interest for the compliance professional. Top stories include: Wells Fargo Consent Decree terminated. (YaHoo!Finance) DOGE actions threaten the safety of ALJs. (Reuters) JPMorgan's purchase of Frank heads to criminal trial. (FT) Of business plans and tariff changes. (Bloomberg) For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge, click here. Check out the FCPA Survival Guide on Amazon.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this installment of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders Frank Davis (Dallas) and John Surma (Houston) discuss the implications of a recent federal court ruling that extends the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, barring the use of administrative law judges (ALJs) in certain matters before the SEC. In November 2024, a federal district court judge in Texas expanded the bar to include ALJs at the U.S. Department of Labor—a decision that could potentially affect OSHA's adjudication procedures. John and Frank's discussion highlights the uncertainty and backlog this situation could create within the federal court system. They also examine the future of administrative law proceedings—particularly for employers facing OSHA actions.

This Day in Legal History: Swiss Banks Settle with Holocaust SurvivorsOn August 12, 1998, a landmark settlement was reached when Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. The settlement resolved lawsuits that accused the banks of withholding millions of dollars deposited by Holocaust victims before and during World War II. For decades, these accounts had been frozen, and the banks had been criticized for their lack of transparency and for making it difficult for survivors and their families to access the funds. The lawsuits brought to light the complex role that Swiss financial institutions played during the war, often prioritizing financial gain over moral responsibility. This settlement was seen as a significant acknowledgment of the wrongs committed and a step toward justice for the victims. The agreement also marked a broader recognition of the need to address the financial injustices faced by Holocaust survivors, setting a precedent for other restitution efforts globally. The $1.25 billion fund was distributed to survivors, heirs, and various Jewish organizations, symbolizing a long-overdue attempt to rectify the banks' wartime conduct. The settlement highlighted the intersection of financial institutions, moral responsibility, and historical accountability in the aftermath of one of history's greatest tragedies.The recent Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy has sent shockwaves through federal health agencies, significantly impacting their ability to impose civil penalties. The decision, which requires a jury trial for civil penalties in SEC cases, is expected to influence how agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct enforcement actions. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could lead to increased legal challenges from healthcare entities, such as hospitals and drugmakers, against penalties imposed by these agencies. The ruling has raised questions about the constitutionality of administrative procedures, particularly those handled by administrative law judges, and may force agencies to reassess their enforcement strategies. The decision could also slow down current enforcement actions while agencies evaluate their legal standing. This ruling is likely to embolden those facing civil penalties to challenge the HHS and its agencies in court, especially in areas like Medicare, tobacco regulation, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program.By way of very brief background, in SEC v. Jarkasy, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC's administrative enforcement of fraud claims without jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment, as such claims involve traditional common law matters warranting a jury. The court also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act's broad delegation of authority to the SEC to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court without clear guidelines violated the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, the protections against removal for administrative law judges (ALJs) were found to infringe on the President's duty under Article II. The Supreme Court later upheld the Seventh Amendment violation but did not address the other issues.Health Agency Approach on Civil Penalties Shaken by High CourtIsmael "El Mayo" Zambada, a prominent Mexican drug lord and co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, claimed he was deceived and forcibly taken to the United States last month. In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada alleged that he was lured into a meeting by Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of his former partner Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and state officials in Sinaloa. He recounted being ambushed, restrained, and flown to the U.S. under duress. Contrary to Zambada's account, Guzman Lopez's lawyer and U.S. authorities assert that Guzman Lopez surrendered voluntarily after negotiations. During the incident, Zambada claims that one of the officials involved, Hector Cuen, was killed, and his bodyguard has since disappeared. Both Zambada and Guzman Lopez have pleaded not guilty to drug-trafficking charges in the U.S.'El Mayo' says he was ambushed in new account of US arrest | ReutersA federal appeals court has extended an order blocking President Joe Biden's administration from implementing its student debt relief plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal from seven Republican-led states, granted an injunction that halts further implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. This ruling follows a previous order that temporarily blocked parts of the plan. The court's decision means that while loans already forgiven won't be reversed, future implementations are on hold. The Biden administration criticized the ruling, arguing it would increase costs for borrowers, while the Republican-led states contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority with the plan. The SAVE Plan, which had partially taken effect, was projected to benefit over 20 million borrowers but now faces legal hurdles that may delay or alter its future. This development follows earlier challenges to Biden's broader $430 billion debt cancellation initiative, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.Federal court extends block on Biden's student debt relief plan | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Could the end be near for the administrative law judges of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS). What about the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA)? Could these entities be gone from the audit landscape?Case in point: the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) continues eviscerating executive powers. This time SCOTUS has limited the authority of administrative tribunals and the administrative law judges to adjudicate some cases—this according to a recent SCOTUS decision.While the actual case relates to administrative hearings at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the limitations likely transcend that agency.During the next live edition of Monitor Monday, physician and attorney, Dr John K Hall, will discuss the potential impacts of the decision and what impact it might have on Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrative law judges.Other broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Legislative Update: Cate Brantley, a senior government affairs liaison for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.

INTRODUCTION: Spencer Bishins has a master's degree from the London School of Economics, and a law degree from Florida State University. Working for SSA for more than 10 years, he drafted or reviewed thousands of disability decisions. After leaving SSA, he wanted to help demystify the complicated disability system. His first book, Social Security Disability Revealed: Why it's so hard to access benefits and what you can do about it, explores the obstacles that disability claimants face as they try to access benefits. INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): ·      SSA System Demystified ·      Veteran's Concerns ·      The Impact On The LGBTQIA+ Community·      Are Drugs & Alcohol A Factor?·      SSI Vs. SSDI·      Medicaid & State Level Implications·      Acceptable Income Levels·      The Way Claims Are Handled ·      Treatment Record Hassles·      HIV Rules ·      How Approvals & Denials Are Decided·      The Impact Of Politics·      Interesting Info On The Kinds Of Judges That Decide Cases CONNECT WITH SPENCER: Website: https://www.bishinspublishing.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/BishinsPublishingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/bishinspublishing/Twitter: https://twitter.com/bishinspub  CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com  DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: ·      Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o  https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o  TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs ·      OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o  https://overviewbible.como  https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible ·      Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o  https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ ·      Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino  https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com  ·      Upwork: https://www.upwork.com·      FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS ·      Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org·      American Legion: https://www.legion.org ·      What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg  INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: ·      PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon  TRANSCRIPT:Spencer Bishins[00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Spencer Bishins is the author of the Eyeopening book Social Security Disability Revealed why it's so hard to access benefits and what you can do about it baby. Now in this episode, we're peeling back the pages to give you an inside look at what really goes on inside the Social Security Administration.And as you can guess, it's lots of Tom Foolery lies honey scandals in every [00:01:00] imaginary type of deception. Listen close, learn some new shit. Share this with a bitch, you know, and reach out to me and let me know what bothered you the most about what you found out about the Social Security Administration.Hello, are you beautiful and special people out there? And welcome back to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. My name is Hubert and I'm your house. And I have with me the mentally stimulating, mind opening, feeling spilling. Spencer Bishops and he is an author and he has come to help us out a lot today.Spencer, how are. Spencer: I'm good. How are you? I am De'Vannon: fan fucking, Spencer: and I, I, I have to say that is the most unique intro I've had so far. No one has given me that exact same intro yet, , [00:02:00]De'Vannon: god damn it. And they never fucking will unless they steal my shit. So, I mean, that's bowing to happen. So so Spencer, he, he wrote a book, it's called Social Security Disability Revealed.Oh, there it is. Beautiful. Why it's so hard to access then to fits and what you can do about it. So, Spencer Bishop, he has a master's degree from the London School of Economics and a law degree from Florida State University. Go FSU now. He worked for the Social Security Administration for more than 10 years.Then he pieced out from them motherfuckers because he wanted to demystify the complicated disability system. This book here, Gonna help you overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of you getting your damn money. Especially after we work, they take all goddamn damn money outta our check and then when we want it, they don't wanna give it back.Ain't that some shit? [00:03:00] Fucking Spencer: bitches. You don't even need me. That's just summarize the whole book right there, . Yeah. So. De'Vannon: I'm gonna pull up the table of contents and read just a few of the chapters and then, I mean, read, read a few of the chapter titles just cause I found them to be interesting. And then, and then right after that, I'm gonna let you tell people why you wrote it and who you are, in your own words.But I thought, I just thought the, the table of contents would like, kind of spill some of the t. So some of the chapter titles from this book are called like after the hearing the Appeals Process, permanent Mental Health Conditions, drug Abuse and Alcoholism, child claimants, deceased Claimants and Widow Claimants Firing Your Representative, and fraud, waste and Abuse.You know, this, this book has 34 chapters in it. So during this podcast show here, and I don't know, we might have to have you back on for a second [00:04:00] time, but be it once or twice, we won't be able to cover all this. So, Y'all wanna get your money, gonna have to get this booked here. So we're thankful that you, after having worked there, gave us this testimony.Now tell us why you did this in your own words and who you are.Spencer: Before I do that, I just wanna say, I promise what's in those chapters is far more interesting than the titles themselves. I wanted to do some more like catchy chapter titles and my editor suggested, no, just tell people what's in the chapters.Don't get too fancy with the chapter titles themselves, but the actual content is far more interesting. So I worked for Social Security for 11 years. During the first four years, I reviewed thousands of cases on appeal decisions that had already been written. And then I went before, as you say, before I pieced out.I spent another seven years at the hearing level actually writing decisions for [00:05:00] administrative law judges. So, and I wrote almost 2000 decisions. So with a sample size that large, as you can imagine, I learned a lot about who gets paid, who doesn't, how judges make the decisions that they make, what techniques they use to deny cases, even when there's really good evidence suggesting someone is disabled.And as you said in the intro, everyone who has paid into the system, that's your. If you work, if you've paid the social security tax, whether you're an employee or have been an employee, or are, or have been self-employed, either way you've paid the social security tax. Mm-hmm. , and that's why it's called an entitlement because you are entitled to get money if you qualify.But I learned a lot of the ways that Social Security and its judges look at people and medical records that should qualify for benefits and figure out ways to deny those [00:06:00] claims. And so I wanted to present the information that I had learned about what the Social Security disability process is. Cause it, it, you know, it's the government and it's, it's social security.It's like two things that if you are not sleeping well, you know, just think about those right. And it'll be your cure for insomnia. And so most Americans don't want to think about boring things like the government or social security or government benefits until you actually need them. If you get hurt, injured, have some sort of chronic condition or something, all of a sudden it ain't so boring anymore, right?Then you realize, wow, this is something that I actually need. I really need to know how to work this system. I need to know how to play the government game, and so that I can give myself a decent chance of actually getting these benefits that I've paid for. Mm-hmm. , De'Vannon: show us the [00:07:00] money. We need our money. So how many people do you think are on disability right about now, and about how many applications do you think come in a year?Spencer: So it wasn't long ago that it was like 2 million applications a year. I think now it's somewhere between around 1 million applications a year. I don't know if we're still above that number or not. And somewhere around nine or 10 million Americans are on are receiving disability benefits. And for social security overall, I think it's like 40 million.It's a lot because that baby boomer generation is in the retirement zone and in like another 10 years as they've died out. I mean it sounds heartless, but that's just statistics and math and reality. Right. At the point where they've died out, the number of overall recipients will probably come down, but the number of disability recipients probably hold pretty steady over time.Okay, De'Vannon: [00:08:00] so, so somebody, it's a, it is a state benefit as I understand it, or is it federal? Spencer: No, it's a federal benefit. When you apply, the first place your application goes is to your state agency and someone at the State Department of Health is responsible for making that initial decision. But if you're approved, it comes out of the federal pot of money, either the Social Security Trust fund for Social Security Disability Insurance, or for supplemental security income, which is a different program.It just comes right out of that plot of general revenues in federal income tax that we all pay. But, but it's federal both ways. So at the initial level and at the reconsideration level, which is the second, second step of the process, it's a state employee making the decision, but still as to whether or not you can get federal money.Okay. So, but, but as I [00:09:00] talk about in the book, Their decisions can impact the state budget too, which is why they're not neutral decision makers. They're not disinterested parties. There's a conflict of interest because if they approve you at the, if that state employee approves you for ssi, you can then get the Medicaid.And Medicaid is a federal state partnership, right? So it's a state employee deciding whether or not you should be approved for ssi, but knowing if they approve you, it's gonna cost the state money from their Medicaid program. So what would you do if you were that state employee and you could potentially cost the state lots of money and your boss has told you, stop costing our state.It's a conflict of interest, isn't De'Vannon: it? Yeah. They do shit like that. That's why I don't work for anyone anymore because bosses are bitches. So you mentioned ssdi. I, so what is the difference between SS I versus [00:10:00]S S D Spencer: I? Yeah, so, and I, and I cover this more in depth in part one of the book. But SSDI is, so I think it, you used to work for someone then, right?Were you ever an employee, W2 employee and you got a pay stub? Yeah. Most of us have done that at some point. Right? On that pay stub, you see three federal taxes coming outta your paycheck every two weeks. Federal income tax. But then there's also the social security and Medicare tax, that social security.Goes to pay for the Social Security Trust fund. And normally we think of that as retirement. I got something I get when I'm an old bart. Right? Don't have to worry about that now. But that also pays for the disability program, which think of that like as your retirement benefits, but sooner if you become disabled and unable to work.So that tax pays for both of those programs, which are kind of really the same [00:11:00] program. That's ssdi Social Security Disability Insurance, that tax you pay. Think of that like an insurance premium that you're paying. And then you have this insurance coverage and you have to have that insurance coverage in order to file an insurance claim.So it operates like an insurance company in that regard. Separate from that is supplemental security income. And that program is really for people who either, who don't have that. Insurance that I just talked about, because they haven't paid enough into the social security system to earn enough credits.So that could be stay at home parents, it could be young workers who haven't paid in long enough. It could be recent immigrants, it could be older people who are retired and haven't worked in the last five years, and so their insurance ran out. So for whatever reason, maybe you just can't get that S S D I insurance.Well, you can go file a claim for [00:12:00] ssi and as I said, that comes out of just regular income taxes. But because that's not an earned benefit, you didn't pay that insurance premium. It's a lot more unstable of a program. First, there's asset and income limitations, so if you have even a little bit of money or you're earning even a little bit of money, you're not gonna qualify.And even if you get approved, it's like 800 bucks a month. And if you work part-time, they'll offset that 800 bucks a month. And as I talk in the book, they'll even offset it for other things. Like let's say you're homeless, so you're crashing on someone's couch. Social Security will say, well, you're getting air quotes pre-read, and they'll deduct whatever they think the value of that is from your ssi.So that SSI program, it's there. And for some people it's all they can get, but it's really not a very good or very useful program. [00:13:00] So the SS D I program is much better. It's an earned benefit. And with that you can get Medicare coverage if you're disabled, which helps with healthcare. If you're not working, you don't have private health insurance.Right. And the other great thing about the S S D I program, the insurance program is that you can actually work. And still get paid benefits at the same time. And that's totally allowed. And the reason Social Security allows that is they want people to try and go back to work. So they let you collect your benefits while you're getting back into the workforce and making sure you can do it.Oh, De'Vannon: that's so sweet of them. I Spencer: know, right? Yeah. But people get confused cuz they're like, my neighbor's disabled and I saw him out pushing a lawnmower and they think like people are gaming the system by working while collecting disability. But that's just a misunderstanding of the system. System actually wants you to go out and try and work [00:14:00] to see if you can do it.And then if you do that long enough, then you graduate from the S S D I program. And they stop your benefits and you return to the workforce. So it's actually a good thing that we let people collect benefits and work because otherwise nobody would go back to work. Right. And that's what we want. We want people who can go back to work.To go back to work if possible. De'Vannon: So if somebody's working in collecting those benefits, is there like a maximum amount of income they can work? I mean can bring in in order for that to Spencer: happen? You read the book didn't you? ? I can tell. Cause that's an excellent question. And you know the answer is yes, there isSo there's a maximum amount of money that you can be earning per month when you're an applicant and a separate number. That's a maximum that you can earn after you're already receiving S S D I benefits. And that amount is lower. And the thing is, if you work and [00:15:00] earn under that amount, You can just keep working indefinitely as long as Social Security keeps paying you your benefits.If you exceed that amount, that's fine, but you only get to exceed that amount for nine months. At the point where you've exceeded that amount for nine months, social Security decides that's what, how they decide that you can go back to work. And so that amount changes every year. But I believe it's $970 this year in 2022.So if you are getting benefits, you're allowed to work. But if you exceed $970 per month, it actually isn't a lot to think about it, right? Like if you're making 50 bucks an hour, it's 20 hours a month or five hours a week. So it doesn't take a lot to show that you can go back to work, but that's what social Security wants to see.They don't need to see that you're working 60 hours a week. They just need to see enough to know that they can cut you loose. [00:16:00] And that you'll be okay on your own. Mm-hmm. and, and that number is a little higher when you're an applicant. It's $1,350 per month that you can work and earn and still claim, Ben still file an application for benefits because that amount indicates that even though you can work, you're probably not doing full-time work.If you exceed that amount, social Security decides that's, that means you can probably show that you can do full-time work and you're not disabled. Mm-hmm. . De'Vannon: So why thank you for that breakdown. Why, why or so many people not at the beginning of the process? Well, we talked about Spencer: one reason already, right?Which is that when you go to the state agency, you, when you first file your application, someone at your state government, usually it's the State Department of Health. Some like $40,000 a year bureaucrat is gonna look at your disability claim and basically like, Make a decision on your life. They'll look [00:17:00] at your medical records and your work history and they'll make a decision as to whether you're disabled.But as I talked about a few minutes ago, they're a state employee and they work for people who wanna keep the state Medicare costs down. So one reason is there's a conflict of interest and they just wanna save the state money. But another reason is, I mean, just think about your own medical records, like they're probably, you probably, if you went to try and get all your medical records for the last couple of years today, you'd have a hard time doing it.And if you have physical impairments, that mean you can't leave your home. So when your doctor says, just come pick 'em up at our office, maybe that's hard to do. Or if you have mental health impairments, Agoraphobia or anxiety, depression, you can't deal with other people. It might be hard to talk to people in, in your doctor's offices.I, not too long ago, a doctor literally told me, we'll [00:18:00] fax you the records. What's your fax number? Like it was 1987. So it's often just really hard for people to get their medical records, to get them organized, to make sure they're complete, to get records from all the different places they've been getting treatment.So I guess they even back up from that. The first thing is sometimes it's hard for people to just get medical treatment. In the United States, 80% of people get their health insurance from work. So if you can't work, cause that's why you're filing a disability claim, right? You can't work, you lose your health insurance, well then you can't go get medical treatment.So the first obstacle is, I can't even get treatment. So how am I supposed to get records? Even if you can get treatment, it's sometimes hard to literally get the actual pieces of paper from your doctor. And then you've gotta get it all organized and give us a social security. You've also gotta fill out their application, their other endless paperwork, like functional reports rely on them probably losing [00:19:00] something along the way and making you fill it out again.Or like, oh, sorry, we lost some of your medical records. Can you like go get those a second time for us? Thank you. It's just barrier after barrier after barrier. The social security puts in your way, a lot of it with very specific intent to keep you from getting through the process and getting a favorable decision on your claim.They know it's hard for Americans without a job and insurance to get treatment. They know it's hard for Americans to gather medical records. Our medical record keeping system in the United States is. In France, everyone has a card. It's kinda like your driver's license and it's like it's got a barcode on it and that card you can take to any medical facility in the entire country and they scan it and they can immediately pull up your entire medical history.In the UK they have something similar with their National health Service and [00:20:00] during the pandemic, within one week, they knew every single British citizen who was a high risk for Covid and they were able to deliver food boxes to those people's homes because they knew where they lived and they did it within one week because they had that information.It was well organized. They knew exactly where to find it, and they knew how to keep people safe. And in the United States, we still have doctors saying, we'll fax you your records. It's ridiculous. But Social Security knows that this is happening. So they know that the records that they're gonna get when you first file your application are gonna be kind of a mess.So is it any surprise that they're denying over 70% of people at that initial application? Somewhere along the line, someone gets tripped up. They don't fill out a form, right? They don't get certain medical records in they can complete, they miss a meeting with someone with the Social Security Office.They can't [00:21:00] go see. Social Security will send you to see this doctor that they basically pay to give you an opinion that you're not disabled. They literally tell you you have to go see a doctor. And we're paying that doctor, and those doctors know to send Social Security and opinion saying that you can work.Otherwise they're not gonna keep getting referrals. And so if you cooperate, you'll probably get an opinion saying you can work. And if you don't cooperate, social says, security says you're not cooperating. So like at some point, one of everything that I've just said will trip up most people and that's why most claims get denied at the initial level.I do know someone who got approved at the initial level, but he was like, he was in the hospital for several months and like, you know, you can imagine how many thousands of pages of medical records that was and they all came from one source. That's the kind of case that social security probably [00:22:00] approves at the initial level, but that's a very rare situ.De'Vannon: Mm. Well y'all of, y'all wanna find out how to circumnavigate that sort of issue. You better grab a copy of this book now. Talk to me about any kind of implications related to, hum. Human immuno efficiency virus, hiv. Spencer: Yeah, so Social Security has a listing for, I it's in the immune disorders section and let's see if I can get it right.I think it's listing 14.08. I haven't been with Social Security in a year, so we'll see if how close I came to that. But the thing is, the social Security listing requirements, they're really strict. And so while every. I was wrong. It's 1407, so I was close though. And [00:23:00] the requirements are super strict for every impairment listing and HIV is no exception.So if you meet the requirements, you can be found disabled without social security considering your work history or whether you could work. That's to talk about in section two of the book, how that's just a medical determination. But you have to have not only the infection diagnosed, but you have to have something else that is either resistant to treatment or requires hospitalization.And that has to happen three or more times in a 12 month period. And there's a list of what these other diagnoses have to be, or you have to have something else for a full 12 month period. Or you have to have repeated manifest manifestations of your disorder. At least two. So there's so many requirements is my point.And that's the case with all the social security [00:24:00] listings. It's not just like an HIV diagnosis. It'll say, you know, an HIV diagnosis with this, this, this, this, and this. And the last thing will have like three elements under that. And that's only like the most severe case is end up meeting these listings.And so for most people, the way that they're found disabled is based on their functioning. So if you don't meet this very specific list of requirements, what social security does is they say, okay, you didn't, you're not disabled medically, but how does your impairment now impact your functioning? What are your functional limitations?And is there a job you can do in the national economy? And so I think with I probably a lot of it is fatigue. And, and there and there may also be difficulty standing and walking or lifting because of fatigue. Do I have that right? As far as like, those are kind of typical functional [00:25:00] limitations someone might have.De'Vannon: I don't really feel like there's like a limit to limitations with someone with HIV man because hiv. Lowers, you know, the immune system and it depends on that person's body. Spencer: That's a great point. Yeah. So you could have gastrointestinal issues, you could have breathing issues, and then of course, it's really common when people have any kind of physical impairments.It's really, really, really common to then have mental health impairments as well. Actually, I, I would say most cases that I saw that had anxiety, depression, PTSD, listed as impairments, they were secondary to some sort of physical condition, be it musculoskeletal or respiratory or an immune system disorder, like hiv.And so, yeah, when you take into account all of this person's impairments and all the ways that it impacts the mind and body, what happens is social security [00:26:00] comes up with a list of functional limitations and then they go to a, a vocational expert, a jobs expert, and they say, Here's a hypothetical person with a bunch of limitations.Are there any jobs in the national economy that person can do? And as I talk about in the book, the thing is when they ask that question, when the judge asks that question, they already know the answer. And here's, I'll give you an example. If I say, I have a hypothetical person who can only work six hours of an eight hour workday, are there any full time eight hour jobs that person can do?We already know the answer is no. Right? Cause the person can only work six hours out of an eight hour workday. So there are certain limitations that SSA judges and attorneys, there are certain limitations that they know will result in a finding of disability. And certain limitations that they know will not result in a finding of disability because there are jobs out there that someone can do with [00:27:00] those limitations.So that's where it becomes a really. Personalized review of your situation where the judge and the attorney looking at the case, have to look at your very specific medical records. Look at what you're telling doctors, look at your overall functioning, look at your attempts at work and see if you couldn't work, why you couldn't work, and try and figure out for this one specific person what that specific person's individualized limitations are based on their personal medical situation.Because as you said, something like HIV and other impairments as well impact people on such an individualized basis at that point. It really, it is about getting into the fine details of that person's medical record to understand what it is that person can or could not do on a 40 hour per week basis.[00:28:00]I'm De'Vannon: gonna get a little bit ahead of myself here since you're, since we're talking about the individualization of it all. Before we had, before, before this recording here, we had talked about a remand rate, a remanding, and you were telling me how not necessarily each and every last review is individualized.Yeah. So can you talk to us about that? Cause I don't want people thinking that they're necessarily going to get special attention, . Spencer: Well, it's, the thing is, it's kind of a mix because the judge who's deciding the case and the attorney who's their staff attorney, who's actually writing the decision, and that was my job, to write the actual decisions for the judges.They do look at every individual's medical records and they do conduct an individualized review of every case at the same time. You are both an individual person but also a statistic because while you're being looked at as an individual case, [00:29:00] that judge has 50 cases that they're doing every month, which means they're doing about 600 case, five to 600 cases a year.And then that hearing office is doing a few thousand cases a year. And then your region is doing 10,000 cases a year or 20,000 cases a year. And then that means nationally it's, you know, over a hundred thousand cases a year. And at each level of the process, you have people looking at the big picture.What is our pay rate? How many cases are we paying? How many are we denying? Is that pay rate too high? Are we getting too much pressure for members of Congress? Cause we're paying too many cases. Maybe we need to bring down the number of cases we're paying. And then if that happens, that filters all the way down to your individual judge who starts thinking.Maybe I'm paying too many cases, maybe out of my 600 cases this year, instead of paying 200, maybe I should pay 1 75 or one 50. And so now they're thinking about which cases [00:30:00] that they may have paid. Now they're gonna deny instead. And that's where you become both the statistic at an individualized person.Because yeah, they're looking at your individualized situation, but they're sitting there thinking, headquarters is telling us to pay fewer cases this year. Maybe this is one that I should be denying. Maybe a week ago I would've paid it. And maybe today, after getting that email from headquarters, maybe today, I think about denying this case.And so it's both and every case is both. You're constantly being evaluated as an individual and a statistic. And that can be really hard on the person writing the decision because. My job was to write the decision the judge wanted. So I don't actually get to decide whether the person's disabled or not.I just have to justify whatever their decision is. And so I would often see cases that I thought there was [00:31:00] really good evidence to approve the person, solid evidence, showing their diagnoses. Say it's something like hiv. I saw a lot of HIV cases. I see their diagnosis. I see their, their test results with cdr CD four, sorry, CD four levels over 200.And I see white count levels that were, were low. And I see other limitations. Difficulty walking long distances. Or someone would say, you know, I tried to go back to work and I just got too tired and I had to quit that job after a week. And the judge would be telling me, we're denying this case. I'd be like, why this?This is really good evidence for I making an individualized analysis saying, I think this is good evidence. I think we should approve this. But then that judge has these external factors that they're thinking about that [00:32:00] in addition to looking at you as an individual, they're also thinking about this case as a statistic.And sometimes when those things, you know, come into conflict, sometimes I then have to write a decision that I don't wanna write or that I don't think the evidence. De'Vannon: Well, I'm so happy you have a soul. You know, I, I know not everybody in the Social Security Administration does, but and you have filled that soul out onto these pages, so I appreciate the, the love that I feel reverberating from you, man.Now there is this book, cuz this little book called The dsm and y'all, that stands with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And I think now we're on like the DSM five, it's gone through a few changes over the years. Yeah. So there's a word in there called gender dysphoria. Spencer, and I don't care for that word, dysphoria.However, [00:33:00] that is what is in that book. And so talk to me about what that means and then what it means for dis for the, for these disability claims. Spencer: Yeah. It doesn't mean much. Well, we'll just boil it down to that. So, after the revisions to the DSM happened in 2013 We did start to see diagnoses of gender dysphoria.Andhere's the thing, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a medical professional. The medical training that the lawyers at Social Security who make the legal decisions, the medical training they're given isn't how to look at a person and make a decision. It's really more how to read medical records. Cause that's what we need to do.We need to read medical records and know how to find, know how that evidence translates into the legal aspects of disability. Right? And so if I'm reading a psychologist or psychiatrist's [00:34:00]report and I see a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, I'm not making a decision on whether or not that's accurate. Cause I don't have medical training.All I know is, okay, this one individual medical. Offered that diagnosis. And so what happens then is if the judge, the, the, the definition of a medical impairment for social security is any medical condition that causes even the most minimal impact on any kind of functioning. And so if you were diagnosed with gender, if a person is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and there's even like the slightest amount of a lack of functioning in some kind of area, so like a lack of concentration or I have difficulty getting along with other people because they don't understand my, my choices or my body or what's happening with me, [00:35:00] that's enough.And so the good thing is judges are, they're not rejecting that completely. The judges will di will take that diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And they'll put it in the decision and they'll call that a medically determinable impairment. The problem is having a medical impairment isn't enough because what we talked about is you ha then have to have work related limitations in order to find someone disabled.And there, I, I just, I had my experience from working with the agency and through mid 2021 judges, in my experience, were just not able to find much in the way of specific work related limitations due to that diagnosis. And maybe that's actually a good thing. Maybe that's kind of progressive in saying like, we don't, we, we understand that this diagnosis is there, but like whatever gender you identify with doesn't impact your ability to [00:36:00] do a job.So on the one hand, if it's, if someone's really struggling with that and they're having anxiety or depression, Or PTSD or personality disorder or suicidal ideations, that could be a separate diagnosis alongside gender dysphoria and that could have work related limitations. But my experience is the gender dysphoria itself doesn't really result in, in and of itself work related limitations.And so that's really not gonna be a basis for finding someone disabled and unable to work. De'Vannon: I hope. I hope not. And because people should be able to identify sexually as they want, be non-binary, whatever the case may be, without any sort of negative implications. Spencer: Yeah. And can I say, can I say one other thing?I also saw a lot of medical reports where the person [00:37:00] identified as a member of the LGBTQ community and there was no diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And that was probably a more. Maybe a younger doctor or more progressive doctor who is like, I I the pa, there's nothing wrong with the patient. They're telling me they're lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual.It's not a diagnosis. And so I'm just gonna focus on their anxiety or depression or these other things they're telling me about. I don't need to focus on how they identify. That's not a diagnosis. In the same way that if someone is a cis I'm not gonna diagnose them with something either. So I saw a lot of medical reports where the medical professional, it just, it didn't matter.It wasn't a thing. It wasn't important. It wasn't, they were what they were focusing on in their medical evaluation. And then other doctors who I could tell just by the [00:38:00] language that they were using were probably baby boomer generation, and maybe they just didn't understand that 25 year old who was coming in and, and talking to them.De'Vannon: Right. And then, and then you, you mentioned that you wrote the decision. The judge, judge did not write the decision, so I wanna be sure that, that, that we're super clear on on that. So the judges don't actually write the decisions. What, what was your exact job title again? Tell us so that we can know. Sure.Spencer: So my job title is Attorney Advisor, and here's the way it works. Social Security is a massive system with over a million applications a year. Several hundred thousand cases are going to the hearing level. There's about a thousand judges Nation. Several thousand other support staff and they're seeing several hundred thousand cases.The numbers are absolutely massive and that means you really need an assembly line in order to keep things moving efficiently. [00:39:00] Cause as it is, people have to wait like a year to get a hearing with a judge. So if you're waiting that long and you're thinking like, why is it taking so long? That's ridiculous.It's just because of the enormous scope of the system. So the judges are doing about 50 hearings per month, so that's about 12 hearings per week. So in a 40 hour week, they're doing about 12 cases. So that's like three to four hours per case. And during that three to four hours, they're doing a, a pre-hearing review of all your records so that when you come into your hearing, they know what's going on with you.They have some idea of your medical history and your work history before they even see you. Then they're doing about a one hour hearing, and then they may have to look at some evidence again after your hearing. And then they write this list of instructions and agency shorthand and I talk about this process in the book, they write this list of instructions and they give it to an attorney, [00:40:00] staff, attorney like me, and then the attorney takes 4, 8, 10, 12 hours to actually write the decision.That's where we're looking at every single one of your medical reports, looking at all the doctors you saw, any medical opinions that are in there from your medical sources, thoroughly, completely evaluating all of that in complete sentences so that, you know, we looked at everything and then that decision gets handed back to the judge, and most of them honestly just sign it.They don't even read it, they don't edit it. They just. They've already spent three and a half hours on the case. They don't have time to do anything else, so they just sign it. Other judges will read through it, make some changes here and there, and tinker with it, and then sign it. But they're really spending very little time in the actual decision.Their job is to just big picture, like approve it or deny it. That's my decision. [00:41:00] My, my staff goes and, and breaks that decision down and, and does the full analysis, and then the judge signs it. So when you get it, it looks like Judge John Smith wrote the decision, you know, wrote this comprehensive 15 page decision.But in reality, they're just taking credit for someone else's work. De'Vannon: Okay, now let's talk about drugs, man. Drugs. Let's talk Spencer: about drugs. . De'Vannon: This is the sex drugs and Jesus podcast. So, you know, the marriage Iana is like super useful and shit. And so like, and, and then we have all these hallucinogenics starting to come up, you know, lsd, celly, masculine and all of that.What are the implications of that? Can since somebody having like medical treatment like that hurt their chances to get approved? Spencer: Yes and no. I was a government attorney, so I'm gonna give you the government answer. So there is a chapter in the book that com [00:42:00] thoroughly discusses how drugs and alcohol work.It. Chapter 26, it's called Drug Abuse and Alcoholism. I don't like those terms, by the way. Those terms come directly from a law passed by Congress in 1996, and that's the law that social security still uses. To decide if drugs or alcohol should be a factor in your case. And there's guidance from 2013 as to about how they apply that.But here's the basics. If you're using any kind of drugs or alcohol, and that's the what causes you to be disabled and unable to work. Social Security can deny you benefits, but if it's secondary, in other words, if they remove the drugs and alcohol from consideration and consider everything else, if you would still be found disabled, then they still find you disabled.So it really has to be the drugs or alcohol use that tips you over the line, right? That that puts you [00:43:00] from, maybe you had limitations, but you could still work full-time and you were not disabled. And then if you're using drugs or alcohol and now you're disabled, that's the point where Social Security says We're applying that law.We're finding that Congress says, if that's the reason that you can't work and you're disabled, then we're gonna find you not disabled. But it has some interesting implications because a lot of people do use drugs for, or alcohol, I guess not alcohol, but a lot of people use different substances for treatment.Right. And there's a lot of states where it's legal. I worked in the state of Washington where cannabis has been legal and you could walk into a store and buy it for eight years now, and the stores are everywhere. Anyone who's been to Washington or Colorado, I think they've got a lot now in California, knows that you just go into cannabis or you show your id, they scan your id and you can buy things to [00:44:00] smoke, chew.They have drinks, they have gummies they have like bath salts. Not bad baths, just like fizzies that you put in a bath to soak in for mu to like help your muscles relax. And so a lot of people use these to help reduce their symptoms so that they can try and go back to work. Luckily the judges do understand this and you have different judges, right?You have some judges that are on one end of the political spectrum and other judges that are more conservative and more hard, harder to deal with when it comes to drugs or alcohol. But even those judges understand that in certain states, cannabis is illegal and people can just go to sore and buy it, and that a lot of people are using it in order to try and improve their medical situation, not to make it worse.So my experience, the judges are actually really good at doing that analysis and [00:45:00] not just looking at what you're using, but why you're using it and how it impacts you. And some of it is self. People ask me like, well, how do they know you're using substances? Some of it is self-declared because they're gonna make you fill out function reports and that's all under penalty of perjury and they're gonna ask you if you are using any drugs or alcohol.And so if you lie, that's really, that's a bad thing. So most people will just declare it, and as I talk about in the book, it really is best to just be honest with Social security and just tell them if you've been using something and why? Because it's not that difficult for a qualified, knowledgeable social security representative to explain to the judge why you were using that substance and why that's not the reason you're disabled, that there's some other reason that you're disabled.That use of that substance was in some way a brand of [00:46:00] self-treatment. And in a lot of cases it is. . And then there are some cases where it's not, and you can tell that the person has a substance addiction and maybe that's their only impairment or their other impairments only surface when they're using substances.And and, and so that's, that's what that analysis is. It's trying to figure out what the core reason is for you being unable to work full time. De'Vannon: Okay. Thank you for that. And I wanna lean more into exactly what type of people these judges are. When we were, before getting ready for this interview, you were telling me, you know, these bitches make like 180 k a year.I don't remember if there's bonuses and stuff like that, but what, what was Spencer: the Probably, I don't know. I'm not a judge, but they probably have some kind of bonus. De'Vannon: But what was important to you? You told me that you said a lot of them were JAG officers and [00:47:00] and that stands for Judge Advocate General.These are people who were in the military, military officers. And so talk to me about the incompatibility, the incongruence the incongruency that you found in between how the health level and the age level of these judges versus the people who they're Spencer: judging. Yeah, so it's not everybody, but a lot of new newly hired judges, a lot of them are from the military because the whole federal government gives a, a preference, a hiring preference to veterans.I think it's the only group where when you're filling out an application for a federal job, your federal employment from the USA Jobs website, it's the only identified group that gets a hiring preference. And that's across the whole federal government. And so, of course, a job with social security, it's a federal agency, is no different.So there tend to be a lot of people who [00:48:00] were lawyers in the military or their lawyers and then maybe they were separately in the military and maybe they had another job in the military. But there are a lot of lawyers who have military service, either past service where they're veterans or maybe past plus current service where they're still in the reserves.And those people will apply to be ALJs, administrative law judges and social security. They'll hire people in their fifties, but they'd rather hire people in their forties so that they can train those people and then have those people working for them for 20 years instead of 10. So I noticed when I was working for Social Security, a lot of judges in their early to mid forties, a lot of judges with military service and if whatever branch of the military they're in, that means they're probably.Going to be fairly physically fit, probably they're not gonna have substantial health conditions because substantial health conditions usually keep you [00:49:00] out of the military. And so you get these young fit judges who like to get up at 5:00 AM who have multiple jobs because they might be judges, but they're also in the reserves and maybe they like, you know, go volunteer somewhere and they go to the gym for two hours a day.So they're physically fit, they're mentally fit, they're really active people. And then they have people coming in front of them who don't have a college degree, who have been working a really hard job where, you know, like construction work, working in a warehouse or nurses' assistants. Or like delivery people.I mean, sometimes we're at a gas station and we see like the pre, the people unloading drinks into the cooler and we don't think about how much they have to lift on a daily basis. Cause they're constantly lifting these [00:50:00] cases of beverages onto these carts. Mm-hmm. and people who have jobs like this, you know, where you're doing that 50 hours a week after 5, 10, 15 years, at some point you're either gonna have some kind of acute injury or your body's just gonna totally break down over time.And people come in and they're, they're in pain. Maybe that means they're on narcotic medications so they're not able to fully concentrate. They maybe have mental health impairments as well cause they can't work. So they're anxious and depressed. And these like, you know, super, the fittest people on the planet are standing up there.Sitting up there cuz they also have a sedentary sit down air conditioned job. Right. And they're literally passing judgment. Over people who have had a life that is totally different from theirs as far as education, upbringing, where they live, what kind of childhood they had, what kind of job training they've had, what kind of job opportunities they've [00:51:00] had, what kind of medical situations they're in, their lack of ability to get treatment.They have no health insurance. The judges have federal employee health plans. And so you get people, these judges who they're just, they're looking at people who they, a lot of times they can't identify with at all. And they're saying things like, well, I can work. Why can't that guy, I can't tell you how many times I heard that.When I would go and let's say the judge says it's the denial. And I look through the medical records and I go to the judge and I try and convince them that they should change that to an approval. Cause I can do that. The person writing the decision talks to the judge all the time. Talk through the evidence, talk about what they're seeing.Hey, maybe we should change this decision until it's signed. It's changeable. And I would go to talk to the judges all the time about like, look, there's this medical evidence and I, I think this guy has these opinions and I think that maybe we should consider paying this case. [00:52:00] And I would hear things like, well, I can work.Why can't he? Or, you know, I, I, I come to work, I, I I commute an hour a day each way that guy could do it. He's fine. And these aine statements that are detached from reality. And that's where I think the, the personalities and the upbringing and the medical situation of the judges comes into play. And I have observed that as judges get older, as they themselves experience certain medical conditions that come with age, like.Oh my, I threw out my back. I need to have back surgery. Or, you know, maybe now I, I, I hit 50, now I need glasses and I didn't use to before. Or something happens medically in their lives as they age. And you do, I, I would see that the judges start to get more sympathetic over time. They start to understand [00:53:00] pain, frustration, lack of mental acuity and they start to be able to sympathize more with the stories that they're being told and to say, yeah, you know, actually now I do believe this person, this person is 55 and, and they worked in a warehouse for 25 years and they threw their back out.And I can see on an MRI that their back is totally destroyed, and they're telling me they're in too much pain to work. I now have back pain myself. So now I get what they're saying. And so that does cause this disconnect between these like young fit judges who kind of come in swinging with denials and older, more seasoned judges who I think tend to be more sympathetic to people and have higher pay rates raise.Their pay rate tends to go up over time. De'Vannon: Okay. Okay. I'm gonna [00:54:00] ask you Spencer: So can I, can I just say one thing? Who your judge is, is something that you can't choose. You as I talk about in the book, there's certain things you can control and certain things you can't control and you can't control who your judge is.And the reason that's important is I wrote the book because I want people to understand. How to get through this process, regardless of who your judge is, regardless of how much of you know, how, how mu, how much difficulty the agency is gonna put you through everything that I've talked about so far.Let's assume you get every single one of these barriers put in your way. I want you to know what all of these barriers are so that you can navigate them. Even a low paying judge, that young fit military judge, maybe they're a 20% payer, but if they're paying 20% of their cases and they have five hearings today, that means statistically they're still gonna approve one of those five people today, right?And so I want you to [00:55:00] know how you can gather the right medical records and present the right case and h and have the right representative sitting with you and work together so that you can present to that judge a situation, a story. Where even the most hardcore, low paying fit military judge says, yeah, that's a pretty good presentation.I think we'll approve that one. I'll use my discretion to deny the next floor, but I don't feel like I have any discretion here. And that's what you wanna do, is you wanna take away that discretion. You wanna make those judges feel like There's nothing I can do about this. This is a solid case. I'm gonna approve this one, and I wanna give you the tools to be able to do that.And that's why I wrote the book. De'Vannon: So, so you mentioned it um, a 20% or so. Talk to us then about the like the approval rates and kind of like how these [00:56:00] judges are rated. And then I want you to tell that story about that one judge who they you know, I think they took like her telework away and they gave her like extra training or whatever.Spencer: Yeah, so the, there is, as we talked about earlier, you're not only a person, you're also a statistic, right? And so headquarters, cuz they're getting pressure for members of Congress and to testify, testify in front of congressional committees. And then that pressure just makes its way down the system to the individual judges.And so if the agency wants to pay fewer cases, if they're getting pressure, Hey, we're paying too many cases, let's pay fewer cases. And that pressure makes its way down to the judges. They're also pressured to pay fewer cases and they're, the judge will tell you, I'm an independent decision maker and I can make whatever decision I want and I'm not bound by any prior denials.And all of that is true and every judge has the authority to [00:57:00] approve any specific case. But they also are looking at the 50 cases for that month and thinking about how many. Do I wanna approve this month? Because I know if I approve too many, I might get hassled. And I knew a judge and I worked for a judge that had a fairly high pay rate and he kept getting hassled by, by his superiors, by the, the higher ups within the agency who basic, they didn't tell him you're paying too many cases because like they don't want that on the front page in the New York Times, right?But they would say things like, we think maybe you need extra training. Maybe you don't fully understand how our agency works. Maybe you don't fully understand the definition of disability, so we're gonna give you extra training. And they would like make him sit through hours and hours and hours of extra training that he didn't wanna do.That's annoying. And that's a pressure point, right? That's a way of [00:58:00] saying like, you know, we're gonna make you an offer. You can't refuse. You, you start denying more cases or there's gonna be consequences, but they don't use the word consequences. And yeah, as you said, I wrote for another judge and they took away her telework.People like working at home, we found that during the pandemic, right, and the judges can work from home, especially during the pandemic, when all the hearings, with telephone hearings, there's no reason why they can't work from home. And that my job, just writing and reviewing your medical records, which are all on the computer, we can all work from home.And so the pressure point for that judge, they knew she liked working from home. So that pressure point was, you do what we need you to do, where we're gonna take away your telework. And so while the judge tells you they're an independent decision maker, you have to understand that they're looking at your specific records, but they're also thinking about themselves.The judges are human. They're thinking about their, [00:59:00] their salary, their health insurance benefits. They don't wanna get fired. They also don't wanna get transferred. They don't wanna be hassled. And so, you know, they're public servants, but of course, even public servants are thinking about their own wellbeing and their own job and their own families.And so when that pressure comes down on them from above, they're gonna, they're gonna react to it and and a fairly reasonable way and in the way that the management wants them to. So that does also happen. I wrote a lot of favorable decisions when I worked for Social Security. I, I just wanna make sure as we get near the end here, and as we conclude, I want people to understand I did write a lot of favorable decisions.But I noticed certain things about those cases. I noticed how well those medical records were put together, how those medical opinions were worded, how those representatives that represented those people presented that case. And so I know with this large [01:00:00] sample size of cases, I have some idea of the things that work, even with low paying judges, the things that can work to get an approval and the things that don't work or the things that people don't do that they should do when they're presenting their case.And so, and that's, that's what really made me say, I need to write a book. I need to get all this knowledge that I have on paper and out to the general public. Because some of this isn't necessarily publicly known information, but it's not necessarily trade secrets either. Right? The law is a certain way and the law defines disability a certain way.And a lot of this is just education that social security doesn't provide you. They're not telling you how to present your disability case, but over time, I've seen the things that work. And so I wanted to present this educational guide to let people know, here are the things that you can do to [01:01:00] present your case in a way to give yourself the best possible chance of success.De'Vannon: And I think you've done quite well, you know, a very good job at doing that. Talk a little bit about like, especially for veterans, you know, since I'm a veteran, just to kind of like talk about that a little bit, you know.Spencer: So just we can cover that real quick. The, the way the VA decides if someone's disabled is different from Social Security because the VA is not only looking at whether your medical conditions are connected to your service, whereas social security doesn't care why your impairments occurred. They are.But the VA also then asks about whether what your fitness is to return to some kind of military duty. And so there are a lot of veterans that will get a hundred percent service connected rating because their impairments are connected to their service and they're found to not be able to return to whatever their military duty was.Asks, can you [01:02:00] do any job in the national economy? And so there are a lot of judges who will see a hundred percent service connected disability for a veteran and just say, okay, that's enough for me. I'm gonna find them disabled. But I wrote a lot of denials for people who at 80, 90, a hundred percent service connected ratings.And it's because even though they couldn't do military duty, they could do other work in the national economy like being a cashier and. There is somewhat of a disconnect between the definitions and the two systems, and that's why it's really important for veterans or military families to also understand how social securities rules operate.Because you can't assume that just because you're a veteran and that maybe your judge is a veteran, you can't assume that's gonna help you out. Actually, again, I wrote decisions for judges who are veterans who looked at a veteran claimant with a hundred percent rating and said, well, I'm a veteran and I can work, so why can't he [01:03:00] and denied those claims.So you have to know the system, you have to know the rules, and you have to know how things work within the Social Security disability system. You can't just assume because you're a veteran or because you have a hundred percent rating that things are gonna work out well for you when you get in front of the social security.De'Vannon: Okay, well there you have it. Y'all's website is visions publishing.com. The social medias of Facebook, Twitter, , Instagram. Of course, all of this is going to go in the show notes, as it always does. So as always with my guests, I'd like to let you have the last word. I thank you so much for your time today, Spencer.Are there any final closing remarks you'd like to say? Spencer: I just wanna say we, we've gone over like the first part of the subtitle today, right? A lot of why it's so hard to access benefits. But I just wanna conclude on a more positive note with the second half of the subtitle, which is what you can do about it.There are specific strategies, there are ways you can get around things. At the [01:04:00] beginning I talked about how Social security will send you to see this doctor who's being paid to say you're not disabled. Well, there are strategies that you can use to counter. That you have to go to that exam. But there are ways that you can get evidence to counteract that medical opinion that do work.There are things that you can present in your medical record or ways that you can testify at the hearing. There are strategies that you can use to try and convince even the lower paying judges that you're not disabled, that you can't work full-time, but they're not things that you would necessarily think.For example, people think like, oh, if I try and work part-time, that might hurt my disability claim. It actually helps your disability claim. So if someone's a disability claimant and you see them working, they might be working because they're representative has told them, this will help your disability claim.And I explain why that is in the book. So don't make assumptions and don't take anything. Social [01:05:00] Security tells you at face value. They're not there to help you. They're not on your side, they're not on your team. They're. They're really there. The Social Security disability system is trying to keep people out and trying to deny as many people as they can so that they can have those benefits for people who are collecting retirement later on.So be your own advocate. Get your own information, educate yourself, hire a good representative, and use the strategies that I'm teaching you about and they will. I can't guarantee you'll be approved, but I can say that these strategies are what you need to give yourself the best possible chance of being approved, even if you get a lower paying judge.De'Vannon: All right, there y'all have it. The name of the book is Social Security Disability Revealed, why it's so Hard to Access Benefits and What You Can Do about It. Thank you [01:06:00] so much, Spencer. Spencer: Thank you for having me.De'Vannon: Thank you all so much for taking time to listen to the Sex Drugs and Jesus podcast. It really means everything to me. Look, if you love the show, you can find more information and resources at SexDrugsAndJesus.com or wherever you listen to your podcast. Feel free to reach out to me directly at DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com and on Twitter and Facebook as well.My name is De'Vannon, and it's been wonderful being your host today. And just remember that everything is gonna be all right.  

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected.Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. Tune in to hear a breakdown of the oral argument.

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected. Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022. Featuring:--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

1. Mark and Kara discuss Hennis case over EPA land grab 1 EPA's “Orange River” DisasterTodd Hennis spent decades building his nest egg as owner of the Gold King Mine near Silverton,Colorado. But seven years ago, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency destroyed the entranceto the mine causing a breach and releasing a toxic sludge of over three million gallons of acidmine drainage and 880,000 pounds of heavy metals. Referred to as the “orange (or yellow) riverseen around the world”, the rush of contamination snaked down the Animus River watershed.NCLA represents Mr. Hennis in his lawsuit, Hennis v. U.S., seeking compensation for the yearsEPA has been squatting on his property without his permission or constitutional authority to doso without just compensation. Mark and NCLA Litigation Counsel Kara Rollins discuss Hennisover EPA's land grab. 2. Mark and Russ discuss latest NCLA amicus, involving ALJ tenure protection at FDIC 2 NCLA Calls for Full Sixth Circuit to Reconsider FDIC ALJ ProtectionsNCLA has filed an amicus brief in a case addressing whether certain Federal Deposit InsuranceCorporation officers, including the agency's ALJs, are protected by multiple layers of tenureprotection in violation of the “Take Care” clause of the Constitution. NCLA asks the SixthCircuit Court of Appeals to grant the petition for rehearing in Calcutt v. FDIC.Mark and NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel or Russ Ryan discuss the latest NCLA amicus.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Cochran v. SEC the Fifth Circuit court of appeals sitting en banc opened the doors of federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana to constitutional challenges to agency administrative law judges (ALJs) who enjoy multiple layers of protection from removal. This means that persons administratively charged by the SEC will no longer have to first endure years of pointless administrative proceedings before judges they claim are unconstitutional. By contrast, in six other circuits (Second, Fourth, Seventh, Eleventh, D.C. and Ninth), administrative agencies such as the SEC and FTC can instigate unconstitutional proceedings and evade judicial review by an Article III court for years on end. Defendants are thereby forced to settle or bankrupted before ever receiving meaningful judicial review.Cochran is not only a groundbreaking course-correction vindicating Americans' access to Article III courts for redress of their constitutional rights, but it creates a circuit split that may well prompt Supreme Court review. The Fifth Circuit, by a 9-7 vote (Haynes, Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham and Wilson) held that § 78y of the Exchange Act neither explicitly nor implicitly stripped jurisdiction from federal courts to hear this challenge.Judge Oldham, joined by Judges Smith, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt and Wilson, concurred separately in a remarkable opinion that set forth the origins of the administrative state in § 78y's transfer of power “far away from the three branches of government the Founders worked so hard to create, separate and balance … [a]nd … as far away from democracy and universal suffrage as possible.” They said that critical disjuncture has allowed “administrative agencies to operate in a separate, anti-constitutional, and anti-democratic space—free from pesky things like law and an increasingly diverse electorate.”Please join Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), who argued the en banc, and Gregory Garre, former U.S. Solicitor General and now partner at Latham & Watkins, who worked with another NCLA client in 2020 on a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on this point, for a discussion of this landmark decision and the concurrence's open engagement with administrative power. Peggy and Greg will discuss how this structural constitutional question was litigated in district courts in California, Texas and the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, what the Fifth Circuit got right that so many other circuits got wrong, and how this separation of powers question might reach the Supreme Court in the near future. Featuring: --Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance --Gregory Garre, Partner, Latham & Watkins

In Cochran v. SEC the Fifth Circuit court of appeals sitting en banc opened the doors of federal district courts in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana to constitutional challenges to agency administrative law judges (ALJs) who enjoy multiple layers of protection from removal. This means that persons administratively charged by the SEC will no longer have […]

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. One way in which ITC Section 337 investigations differ from district court litigation is that the day-to-day activities of ITC actions are overseen not by an Article III judge, but by one of six administrative law judges. In this episode, Ropes & Gray IP attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, Brendan McLaughlin, and Mike Morales delve into the role and responsibilities these ALJs play in managing a fast-paced Section 337 proceeding, including how the individual ALJs may differ in presiding over their particular cases.

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. One way in which ITC Section 337 investigations differ from district court litigation is that the day-to-day activities of ITC actions are overseen not by an Article III judge, but by one of six administrative law judges. In this episode, Ropes & Gray IP attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, Brendan McLaughlin, and Mike Morales delve into the role and responsibilities these ALJs play in managing a fast-paced Section 337 proceeding, including how the individual ALJs may differ in presiding over their particular cases.

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Historically, challenges to patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act have been rare at the ITC, as the Commission's Section 337 proceedings necessarily involve tangible, physical goods. But recent changes in the case law from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have led to a noticeable uptick in the numbers of times the Commission and its ALJs have been forced to grapple with patent eligibility issues. Ropes & Gray attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, Josef Schenker, and Brendan McLaughlin discuss how Section 101 challenges have evolved over time at the ITC, and how this issue may be litigated differently before the Commission than in district court patent litigation. They also provide an update on recent proposed litigation that may affect Section 337 proceedings.

Ropes & Gray's podcast series Talkin' Trade explores the world of Section 337 unfair import investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Historically, challenges to patent subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act have been rare at the ITC, as the Commission's Section 337 proceedings necessarily involve tangible, physical goods. But recent changes in the case law from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have led to a noticeable uptick in the numbers of times the Commission and its ALJs have been forced to grapple with patent eligibility issues. Ropes & Gray attorneys Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro and Brendan McLaughlin discuss how Section 101 challenges have evolved over time at the ITC, and how this issue may be litigated differently before the Commission than in district court patent litigation. They also provide an update on recent proposed litigation that may affect Section 337 proceedings.

What percentage of administrative law judge (ALJ) decisions end up at the Medicare Appeals Council? What percentage of those decisions are reversed?These are important questions asked by a reader in response to a recent article written for RACmonitor by Frank Cohen, senior healthcare analyst and director of business intelligence for DoctorsManagement. Cohen, who has extensive experience as a subject matter expert in ALJ hearings, will look under the hood of the perpetual appeals machine, while sharing insight into the appeal process – describing how it is broken and why.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will return to make his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment.RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner at the law firm of Practus, will file the Monitor Mondays RAC Report.Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, will report on the latest healthcare regulatory news coming out of Washington.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Bryon, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on legal implications facing healthcare providers. Social Determinants of Health: Ellen Fink-Samnick, a nationally recognized expert on the social determinants of health (SDoH), will report on the latest news that’s occurring at the intersection of healthcare and socioeconomics. Ellen will also conduct the Monitor Mondays Listeners Survey.

Constitutionality of ALJs NCLA filed an amicus brief in Fleming, et al. v. USDA, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC and taking issue with the USDA's use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) who violate Article II and the separation of powers. No statute, law, or court precedent compelled the decision. Longstanding precedent requires courts to fulfill their “unflagging” duty to hear such constitutional challenges which protect Americans from this merciless and illogical flex of government power.  On February 16th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia filed a disappointing ruling —leaving Mr. Fleming in a legal limbo where his constitutional separation-of-powers claim cannot be heard by a real Article III judge. The Fleming case contested the USDA's use of ALJs in a way that violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In this episode, Mark discusses the D.C. Circuit's decision in Fleming, et al. v. USDA.  Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/amicus-brief-fleming-et-al-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/   Tax Season Later in the episode, Vec describes Ali Taha's battle against the IRS and the problems with Brand X deference by the Courts. During Fiscal Year 2019 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed approximately 253 million tax returns and other forms. But if the case of NCLA client Ali M. Taha is any indication, there is no guarantee that the IRS will acknowledge receipt of your tax return or tax-refund claim, and you might just end up in court trying to get your money back.  Mr. Mohamad E. Taha and Ms. Sanaa M. Yassin, filed a claim seeking refund of taxes overpaid in 2002, 2003, and 2004, but the IRS asserts it never received the filing. The CFC conducted a trial on the question of whether Mr. Ali Taha had mailed the tax-refund claim to IRS. The court concluded that Mr. Taha's testimony was credible and that he had indeed mailed the tax-refund claim. However, IRS argued that an amended 2011 regulation prohibits witness testimony on the timely-mailing question and instead only recognizes certified or registered mail receipts as adequate proof of mailing. The regulation conflicts with the applicable statute, which several courts have read to allow witness testimony on this very question. Moreover, the regulation contradicts the centuries-old common law “mailbox rule” that allows such testimony. A canon of statutory construction called the common law presumption canon forbids construing statutory silence to override the common law. Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/ali-m-taha-on-behalf-of-his-deceased-brother-and-his-brothers-wife-v-united-states/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Although Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) office space is closed to the general public, OMHA remains open for business with employees working under maximum telework flexibilities, per U.S. Office of Personnel Management guidance.” -OMHA website.Indeed, “OMHA hearings and appeals processing measures are proceeding as scheduled,” the notice reads. “Unless an appellant is notified directly that a hearing has been postponed or canceled, appellants should continue to appear for hearings by telephone, as scheduled.”Through teleconferencing and phone calls, many administrative law judges (ALJs) are exercising flexibility in rescheduling such hearings or granting extensions to file for a hearing. Furthermore, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has suspended new Medicare fee-for-service audits through the duration of the public health emergency, as you’ll hear more about during this edition of Monitor Mondays. Reporting our lead story during the weekly broadcast will be Andrew Wachler, Esq., a familiar figure at OMHA and managing partner of Wachler & Associates.Other segments to be featured during the live broadcast include the following:RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, a partner in the Potomac Law Group, files the Monitor Mondays RAC Report.SDoH Report: Ellen Fink-Samnick, a nationally recognized expert on the social determinants of health (SDoH), reports on the news that’s happening at the intersection of COVID-19 and SdoH. Ellen will also conduct the Monitor Mondays Listener Survey.Legislative Update: Former Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) official Matthew Albright, now chief legislative affairs officer for Zelis, reports on the status of healthcare legislation associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrickson & Bryon, joins the broadcast with his trademark segment, reporting on telehealth therapy.Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, makes his Monday Rounds with another installment of his popular segment.COVID Q&A: Navigating COVID-19 guidance continues to be a major challenge for healthcare professionals – and that is why Monitor Mondays will devote additional time during this live broadcast to answer your questions.

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:Sayers v. VA (Fed. Cir. 2018-2915) (March 31, 2020) (retroactivity of 2017 statute governing evaluation by MSPB of VA misconduct adverse actions);Noffke v. Dept. Defense (Fed. Cir. 2019-2193 NP) (April 8, 2020) (use of swipe records in AWOL cases; hearsay value of OIG reports);SBA v. AFGE Local 288, 71 FLRA 655 (April 2, 2020) (application of Bolling standards to grievances challenging disciplinary actions);SSA v. Ass'n. ALJs, IFPTE, 71 FLRA 652 (March 31, 2020) (jurisdiction of FLRA to stay FSIP proceeding);Sistek v. VA (Fed. Cir. 2019-1168) (April 8, 2020) (retaliatory investigation claimed as covered IRA personnel action);Babb v. Wilkie (Supreme Court No. 18-882) (April 6, 2020) (burden of proof in federal sector age discrimination cases)

This current presidential administration set out to change America’s courts – and, unfortunately, it is succeeding. This episode discusses a recent Presidential executive order and DOJ memo that changes the way Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are hired and fired in this country. The administration claims the changes are in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, but they aren’t. Lucia doesn’t require the changes (and they know it). The changes are the latest move in their campaign to change America’s courts.We also dig deeper into the role of ALJs at the Social Security administration since most of the ALJs work in SSA. We discuss how this administration’s changes threaten the impartiality and independence of ALJs and how that is dangerous given the importance of social security benefits to minority populations.Sources:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-otc-dojmemo/in-confidential-memo-to-agency-gcs-doj-signals-aggressive-stand-on-firing-aljs-idUSKBN1KD2BBhttps://www.bna.com/supreme-court-leaves-n73014476762/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-you-have-a-social-security-card-then-take-this-executive-order-personally/2018/07/18/4d66339c-89d6-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3c66ebe866bbhttps://takecareblog.com/blog/the-trump-administration-s-newest-target-administrative-law-judgesInstrumental: "Pyro Flow" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This week, Jason and Easha discuss a new executive order and accompanying guidance by the Trump Administration that dramatically change the rules for hiring Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) across the entire federal government. Easha starts the discussion by explaning the background of the federal bureaucracy, what role ALJs play, and why that role has changed after the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucia v. SEC. They then discuss the Trump Administration's response to Lucia, which, taken as a whole, substantially changes the way ALJs are hired and could potentially alter the reasons they can be fired. Easha and Jason consider whether the changes—which will permit the President to have more control over administrative judges—are good or bad, and they also wonder whether these issues will ever be aired in court. They end with a few Trump nuggets updating other important cases, including the Manafort case and the census case.You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. You can buy t-shirts and other goods with our super-cool logo here. NotesThe President's executive order is here.The DOJ guidance memo is here. Reuters first posted the memo in a story that can be found here.Jason discussed updates to the census and national monuments cases. Those updates were based on this article (census) and this one (monuments). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Join us as our experts discuss this important ruling.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceDr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Agencies formally adjudicate a massive number of federal cases with administrative law judges. This delegation of judicial power is justified by the alleged lack of time and expertise of federal courts as compared to agencies. In this essay, Professor Michael Rappaport argues that ALJs should be replaced with Article III administrative judges that have expertise in a subject (such as health, science, or economics) rather than one agency.This teleforum will address numerous issues surrounding the proposed reform, including the practicality of adding so many Article III judges, the constitutional problems with the current system of formal agency adjudication, and the benefits of subject matter expertise.Featuring:Professor Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of LawModerator: Professor Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Agencies formally adjudicate a massive number of federal cases with administrative law judges. This delegation of judicial power is justified by the alleged lack of time and expertise of federal courts as compared to agencies. In this essay, Professor Michael Rappaport argues that ALJs should be replaced with Article III administrative judges that have expertise in a subject (such as health, science, or economics) rather than one agency.This teleforum will address numerous issues surrounding the proposed reform, including the practicality of adding so many Article III judges, the constitutional problems with the current system of formal agency adjudication, and the benefits of subject matter expertise.Featuring:Professor Michael B. Rappaport, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law; Director, Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism, University of San Diego School of LawModerator: Professor Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law SchoolTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).Kevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.Featuring:Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawKevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d).Kevin Muhlendorf of Wiley Rein and Professor Gregory Dolin of the University of Baltimore School of Law join us to give their impressions of the oral argument of this important case.Featuring:Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawKevin B. Muhlendorf, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a case with important implications for administering government in an accountable manner. Federal agencies wield enormous power over the lives of Americans in many respects. Instead of bringing enforcement actions against individuals or businesses in federal court, agencies often opt to commence proceedings where in-house judges preside. These administrative law judges or “ALJs” make up what is sometimes called the “hidden judiciary.” They adjudicate claims, decide what evidence is admissible, and enforce penalties and compliance. Some believe ALJs are well-suited to handle these proceedings efficiently, but others believe ALJs suffer from a lack of independence because they work for the agency that initiated the proceedings. In a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide whether they are unconstitutional. The Court will consider whether ALJs are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Why is this a big deal? What does this mean for government accountability? And what effect might this have on thousands of enforcement actions? Please join us as an expert panel discusses this important case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Recorded from the Washington State Bar Association offices in Seattle, ALPS Executive Vice President, Chris Newbold, sits down with WSBA Executive Director, Paula Littlewood to discuss Washington's pioneering efforts in improving access to justice through the Limited Legal License Technician (LLLT) licensure. Today there are 80-90% of people with civil legal problems, particularly people in a lower income bracket, who don't or are unable to receive help from a lawyer. Hear about where the program is today, its foundational principles and why it is being closely watched nationally as a forward-thinking solution by access to justice advocates as the first independent paraprofessional license in the legal profession in the United States. ALPS In Brief, The ALPS Risk Management Podcast, is usually hosted by ALPS Risk Manager, Mark Bassingthwaighte. This episode is hosted by Chris Newbold, ALPS Executive Vice President.   Transcript: CHRIS: Okay. Welcome. Thanks for joining us for another episode of ALPS in Brief. My name is Chris Newbold. I am Executive Vice President of ALPS. Today I'm sitting in downtown Seattle in the offices of the Washington State Bar Association with a colleague and a friend, Paula Littlewood, who's the Executive Director of the Washington State Bar Association. I want to talk about a subject that is trending nationally, which is thinking about how we battle access to justice issues and one of the innovative programs that the Washington State Bar is involved with, which is the triple L.T. program, the Limited Legal License Technician. Before we start, Paula, if you could introduce yourself, your role, and what the Washington State Bar does. PAULA: I am Paula Littlewood, Executive Director of the Washington State Bar Association. I've been here about 15 years. The Washington State Bar is what's known as an integrative bar, so we are the regulatory agency operating under delegated authority from the Washington Supreme Court to regulate all licensed legal professionals in the State of Washington.  We are also the professional association supporting our members as they do their work and serve the public. CHRIS: Okay. One of the issues that we're really focusing on today is the issue of access to justice. We know that 80 to 90% of folks with civil legal problems in the United States, particularly those of low income, never receive help from a lawyer. I know that one of the things that you've been trying to do, as part of your job here in Washington, is to think about that challenge and to come up with solutions. One of the ways that you've done that is a program that, if you go out to the National Bar Association regional bar gatherings, it's hard not to hear about this particular subject that you all are at the forefront of. Talk about what the triple L.T. program is and why it's unique and why it's different when you think about the context of alternative legal services. PAULA: Probably the first thing I'd say is it's not a program. It's a license. What we are doing in Washington State is licensing the first independent paraprofessional in the legal profession in the United States. In many states you might be familiar with a nurse practitioner in the medical field. Nurse practitioners in many states, in our state, are licensed to work independently of the doctor to give medical advice up to a certain point. When they reach the edge of their license, and the scope of their responsibility that they're licensed to do, they refer the patient on to the doctor.  Triple L.T. is the exact same concept in the legal field. A triple L.T. is licensed. They have a limited license, hence the name limited license legal technician, to work independently. If they choose, open their own practice separate from a lawyer, to provide legal advice in certain practice areas. The Supreme Court rule that creates this license is designed to be applied in various practice areas. The first practice area that the triple L.T.s are licensed in in Washington State is family law. One of the things that the Supreme Court's triple L.T. board is exploring now is what the next practice area will be. It's envisioned that some triple L.T.s may want to get licensed in multiple areas or there may be people that aren't interested in family law but, if a different practice area comes on line, they may choose to become a triple L.T. in that practice area. I think it's important to distinguish the triple L.T. from other alternative service providers that we all are familiar with nationwide. We have document preparers. We have courthouse facilitators. We have the New York navigators who are all critical in helping service the public. The different with the triple L.T. is they are licensed to give legal advice just like Chris and I are as lawyers. We actually don't consider triple L.T.s non-lawyers because they have a license to practice law from the State Supreme Court just like I do. It's just that they have a limited license and can only provide services up to a certain amount, and then by court rule are required to refer the client on to a lawyer. CHRIS: Okay. What was the catalyst for the program? Who provided the thought leadership in coming up with the concept? PAULA: It's a two-track approach that it came in on. There was a Supreme Court board. The Washington Supreme Court had a board known as the Practice Law Board.  They were looking at unauthorized practice law and how can we deal with the unauthorized practice law? That was one track that brought us the triple L.T. They were trying to figure out how do you provide to the consumer qualified and regulated legal service providers? At the same time, our Washington Supreme Court had commissioned a civil legal needs study, which quantified the unmet need. Chris referenced this at the beginning of our talk, the unmet need in our country. The civil legal needs study, we knew we had a lot of unmet needs, but it gave us an actual quantification that 80 to 85% of low and moderate-income folks were going without the representation that they needed in critical civil matters. Between those two things, the need to get more qualified and regulated providers into the marketplace, and the staggering unmet need, the Practice Law Board worked for about eight years and recommended to the Washington Supreme Court the creation of this limited license legal technician license. The court adopted the rule in 2012, and we were off to the races. CHRIS: Okay. When was the first class of those applying for licensure? PAULA: It was about two years later. When the court created the license, they also created the Limited License Legal Technician Board.  The Supreme Court needed a board that would figure out how the license would run. As the court's regulatory agency, we staff and fund that board. We work together because we're the regulator and they're the Supreme Court's board setting all the policy. It took two years. If you think about what the triple L.T. board was doing, they were creating a new profession out of whole cloth. When you hear the chair of the triple L.T. board talk about it, he'll say, "It wasn't like we could go to California or New York and pull their rule off the shelf and say okay let's modify it to fit in Washington." They had to define the scope of family law and what these folks would be allowed to do. We had to design a curriculum to train them. We had to design a bar exam. We were creating a whole profession. It took about two years until we actually had candidates in the process being trained. We're about 2012 to 2018, we're about six years in. Right now we have 27 who are licensed. We have another 60 or so that are completing education and admission requirements. Then we probably have a couple hundred coming up through the community colleges. The education happens at two levels. There's what we call a core education at the community college level. Once they complete that, then they can move on to the practice area education, which is offered through the University of Washington Law School. We've had people say to us, "That's all you have?" We're saying, "Well, we started from ground zero." I think, once it starts picking up momentum, we'll ... CHRIS: Yeah. One of the things that we found very interesting about the class of folks that you are licensing is just that you require them to have malpractice insurance. ALPS, as the endorsed carrier of the Washington State Bar, actually found it to be a very appealing risk group because of the extensiveness of the educational requirements that you place upon these folks who aren't going to law school but, I would venture to say, are actually more qualified and trained coming out of their program than most folks coming out of law school. I wanted you to just comment on just the extensiveness of the training that your triple L.T.s have to engage in to earn this distinction. PAULA: One of the University of Washington law professors said the exact same thing. When we came to the end of developing the family law practice area curriculum, he said, "These folks are going to be better trained in family law than our JDs coming out."  I went to law school and never took family law. I could have started practicing family law the day I received my license. The family law training is 15 credits. Five credits are just basic family law, probably what a lot of us, if I had, would have taken them in school. The next 10 credits drill down very deeply into the actual scope. One of the most important things ... This is where I, as chief regulatory counsel and chief disciplinary counsel, was probably most involved was in this training aspect. We wanted to make sure these folks understood the scope of their authority. Most importantly, when they've come to the edge of it and gone beyond it. Actually, when we first took the curriculum to the triple L.T. board, the triple L.T. board said, "Wait a minute. You're training them to do things they can't do." We said, "Yeah. We have to expose them to things that they can't do so they understand when they've crossed the line." Each class is twin taught by a law professor and a practitioner. When I think back to my own law school experience, if somebody would have been giving me the doctrine and, at the same time, saying, "Here's what it's going to look like on the ground." It would have been really helpful. Gonzaga is also helping teach the classes. I would be remiss to not thank ALPS for stepping in. As Chris mentioned, we do require malpractice insurance for the triple L.Ts. We do not yet in Washington require that for lawyers. We had talked to a couple of insurance carriers. They said exactly what Chris said. "Huh. These guys are less risk, better trained, narrower scope." Whereas, lawyers can ... CHRIS: Go everywhere. PAULA: Go everywhere.  We thank ALPS hugely for stepping in and believing in the license and believing in the caliber of providers we're turning out. CHRIS: As you think about the future, what do you think is the outlook for the program and for the ... PAULA: For the license. CHRIS: For the license. I do think it's one of those that's very unique nationally. A lot of people are keeping their eyes on it. Talk about just what your outlook is for the license here in Washington, and what you see down the road in terms of the many speaking engagements you've done nationally in terms of thinking about where other states may go on this issue? PAULA: There's a number of states that are looking at it. Utah is probably the closest. Their rule is drafted. I think they're working on development of their exam. I think they're calling them limited license practitioner ... I can't remember. It's a little bit different name. Oregon has had two task forces recommend that they do it. We'll just wait and see when they get to putting rubber to the road. New Mexico is looking at it. California jumped in the water right behind us. They were moving pretty quickly, but I think they've got other issues they're dealing with right now. Minnesota was looking at it. Florida. I'm trying to think. Montana looked at it. I'll tell you where I've been traveling a lot is Canada. We've probably been to four or five provinces now that are quite interested in a number of their provinces. I think in particular, states where there's a lot of rural population. We all know it's getting more and more difficult to recruit lawyers into the rural areas. I think there's a lot of states and some of these provinces that are seeing that the triple L.T. might be an option to serve rural areas. The nice thing for the triple L.T. is, since they go to a community college for the first part of their education, they get to stay in their community. Right? CHRIS: Mm-hmm (affirmative). PAULA: The practice area education that's offered by the law school is streamed, so you can actually be anywhere to take the law school classes. They're synchronous, so it's not like they're downloading podcasts at three in the morning. We've taught in the classes. It's very interactive. The students are there. They're chatting at you. I think a lot of states, and definitely these provinces, are looking at a possible solution for servicing rural populations. CHRIS: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Is there anything that's surprised you about the license as it's now moved from concept to regulatory infrastructure to an actual class of folks that you're regulating? PAULA: There are a couple of things. One was the collaborations that developed. One was our three law schools saying, "Don't don't have [inaudible 00:13:51] develop the curriculum. We'll do it together." That's was really fun. We worked with the three law schools in the state to develop the family law curriculum. Then the collaboration between the community colleges and the law schools. There were these collaborations that we never anticipated that were really fun. They really came together and said, "How are we going to make this the best license possible?" It created a culture of innovation in Washington. As you know, the bar and a lot of people were very opposed to this right up until the bitter end. Once the Supreme Court spoke, once the Supreme Court passed the rule and said this is the direction we're going, we need to do this for the public, it really, in a lot of ways, created a culture of innovation. We had people coming to us saying, "Have you thought about the triple L.T. in this area or that area?" We had the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys came and said, there's some parenting things where we think triple L.T.s might be helpful. The ALJs have approached us. That was exciting. Not to say we don't still have people that question the idea or are suspicious. County bars have started embracing them, the members of the county bars. The Washington State Bar two years ago, the Board of Governors voted to make triple L.T.s members of the bar. That's all been super exciting. CHRIS: Yeah. Yeah. I thought it was interesting. I mean, you and I, we were observers of legal trends. Our profession is not the fastest to adapt to emerging challenges that society thrusts upon us. I thought it was interesting going back to the Supreme Court order that started the license. Here's the quote. "We have a duty to ensure the public can access affordable legal and law-related services, and that they are not left to fall prey to the perils of the unregulated marketplace." It just seems like that's the type of ... Your Supreme Court, frankly, went out on a limb a little bit and said, "You know what? We think that there is something to be said for creating this opportunity." It's interesting to now watch, six years later, where you're at now and where you hope to go. PAULA: Yes. We tell everybody every place where we speak about it, "Come on in. The water is fine." CHRIS: Good. Thank you, Paula. I appreciate your time. Fascinating subject. As we think about access to justice and alternative legal services, it's clearly an issue that observers are going to be watching from around the country. PAULA: Great. Thank you. CHRIS: Thank you.  

The SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d). Featuring:Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The SEC fined the petitioner Raymond J. Lucia $300,000 and barred him from working as an investment advisor for anti-fraud violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act. The petitioner requested SEC review, arguing that the administrative proceedings were invalid, as the administrative law judge (ALJ) who decided his case was unconstitutionally appointed. ALJs are appointed by SEC staff in a manner that Lucia claimed violated the Appointments Clause under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. When the SEC ruled against Lucia, he appealed to the D.C. Circuit which denied the petition for review by a divided court, issuing a new decision affirming the SEC's decision as required under D.C. Circuit Rule 35(d). Featuring:Shane Kelly, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The D.C. Circuit heard a rare doubleheader of en banc arguments on major structural separation of powers questions on May 24. -- First up was Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, which presented the question whether Administrative Law Judges at the SEC are “Officers of the United States” who must be selected in compliance with the Appointments Clause. The SEC contends that its ALJs are employees, not officers, because the ALJs do not exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,” which the Supreme Court has described as the hallmark of officer status. Last August, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC, relying almost exclusively on an earlier (divided) D.C. Circuit precedent, Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000), which held the ALJs at the FDIC are not officers because they do not issue final agency decisions. Three months later, the Tenth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision finding that SEC ALJs are officers who must be selected pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The Tenth Circuit panel expressly disagreed with Lucia and Landry that authority to issue final agency decisions is a prerequisite for officer status. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated its panel decision and granted en banc review. The status of ALJs under the Appointments Clause has important implications not only for the SEC’s enforcement of the securities laws but also for the system of administrative agency adjudication as a whole. -- The second case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, presented the question whether an “independent” administrative agency may be led by a single person. In a 100-page opinion by Judge Kavanaugh (joined by Judge Randolph) drawing on historical practice and first principles of separation of powers, the panel concluded that the statutory provision vesting the CFPB’s broad enforcement authority in a single director removable by the President only “for cause” violated Article II of the Constitution. The panel emphasized the absence of any historical precedent for an independent agency with a single director—a structure that created, in the panel’s description, an administrative official with more power than anyone in the federal government other than the President. The panel explained that this concentration of authority in a single person unaccountable to the President except for cause posed a “threat to individual liberty.” The panel remedied the constitutional defect by severing the statute’s “for cause” removal provision, thus making the CFPB director removable by the President at will. Judge Henderson dissented in part, arguing that the panel could have resolved the case on the basis of PHH’s statutory rather than constitutional challenges. The D.C. Circuit granted en banc review on both the constitutional and statutory questions. The Justice Department (under the Trump Administration) filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers, while the CFPB continues to defend the constitutionality of its structure through its independent litigation authority. -- Featuring: Thaya Brook Knight, Associate Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute and Christopher G. Michel, Associate, Bancroft PLLC.

Indefinite detention of sex offenders, qualified immunity for social workers, the SEC’s unconstitutional ALJs, and a vexing property rights case. Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Use Android (RSS)? http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:84493247/sounds.rss Newsletter: http://ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Indefinite detention: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/17/01/153485P.pdf Social workers QI: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/01/03/15-55563.pdf SEC ALJs: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-9586.pdf Regulatory takings: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0007n-06.pdf Will Baude on the unlawfulness of qualified immunity: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/10/is-it-time-to-hold-police-officers-accountable-for-constitutional-violations/?utm_term=.261a23fd8290

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:Montgomery v. DHHS, 2016 MSPB 8 (Feb. 5, 2016) (VEOA right to compete: transfers);SSA and IFPTE, Ass'n. ALJs, 69 FLRA 208 (Feb. 4, 2016) (contract provisions governing timeliness of arbitrators' awards)Zenia M. V. DHHS, EEOC 0120121845 (Dec. 18, 2015) (reprisal liability for improper disclosure by agency EEO officials of materials in the complainant's ROI)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recently increased its use of administrative proceedings, before Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), to seek civil penalties, as an alternative to proceeding in an Article III court. Other federal regulatory and enforcement agencies use ALJs for various purposes at various rates. Although no single set of rules governs all ALJs, they typically differ from Article III courts in important ways, bringing their use under recent criticism. As two examples, ALJs do not enjoy life tenure and they are sometimes employed by and answerable to the agency itself. Our panel will discuss the pros and cons of the use of ALJs at the SEC and other agencies. -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Thursday, November 12, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; Mr. Stephen J. Crimmins, Shareholder, Murphy & McGonigle PC; Prof. Todd E. Pettys, H. Blair and Joan V. White Chair in Civil Litigation, University of Iowa College of Law; and Prof. Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, International Trade Commission.